CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › casualharbor9 › Posts

Posts by casualharbor9

317 posts shown.

Nikki, I need your input! in Feedback & Suggestions ·
So, we’re about two weeks out from this:

The response "The moderator already explained the rules, you're just being provocative" isn't much of an answer, especially after that very same moderator told me to take my grievances up with you.
Why don't you tell me what you actually think about all this? After all, isn't that the whole point of the Politics subforum?

I didn't start this thread because I'm on some crusade against wind farms. No, I started it to establish the editorial policy for the natural science subforum—and by extension, how my contributions (and everyone else's) should be handled there. This specific pattern of "discussion" seems to trigger every single time someone's opinion happens to clash with a moderator's personal views.
Self-sabotaging in relationships: Why do we do it? in Psychology & Therapy ·
Kevin Nguyen3 said:I was actually going to dive deep into this earlier, but I reconsidered..

It is such a sensitive, frankly dangerous subject to poke at. You might end up uncovering things about your own psyche that were much better left buried deep in your subconscious—some truths are simply better left unknown, don't you think?

One doesn't necessarily need a diagnosed disorder to exhibit self-destructive tendencies.. but what, truly, is the root cause of it?!

The origins usually lie somewhere in one's childhood, though unfortunately, we can't know those specifics here. Perhaps a skilled psychoanalyst working along Freudian principles could shed some light... who knows?

But speaking generally—childhood neglect or abuse, even sexual abuse, physical or psychological maltreatment, toxic dynamics between parents or within the parent-child relationship itself, early trauma or separation from caregivers, feeling misunderstood by peers or society, poor social conditions... there are just so many factors involved...

And all of this can spiral into self-destruction through means like self-harm, substance abuse, and eventually leading to depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and profound insecurity.

Quite heavy stakes, isn't it?...

Broadly speaking, it functions as a form of self-punishment. That's really it... an attempt to regulate certain emotional hardships.

You start believing you are incapable of being in a relationship (which isn't true), or that you don't deserve love (which is a second falsehood)..

Some people dismiss it as mere "attention-seeking," but that is nothing more than a shallow prejudice.

All these threads can weave together into alienation, which can then lead toward narcissism—and now we are entering the realm of clinical psychiatry.

There is certainly more to discuss, but there are ways to find help... if you are interested, of course.😉

Personally, I'm genuinely interested.
The toxic dynamic between my mom, my cat, and me. in Psychology & Therapy ·
William Murphy said:Hey everyone.

I wasn't really sure where this topic fits best, but this feels like the right spot for it.

So, basically, I was sitting out on the porch with a friend when this little stray kitten wandered up behind us and curled up on the bench right on top of a coaster. When I headed inside, I didn't bother moving the coaster because I just wanted to let the little guy sleep in peace. Later, when I told my dad about it, he just lost it. He goes, "Is that where I sit? How am I supposed to sit there now?" Honestly, I was kind of stunned. It’s not like it’s rocket science—you just wash the damn coaster. Besides, I’m usually the one sitting on it, while Dad just sits on the wood without any protection. Anyway, he tells my mom, and she storms outside, starts yelling at the kitten, grabs the coaster, and the poor thing gets knocked off its perch, falls to the ground, and bolts. It felt terrible. I quietly slipped back outside when Mom wasn't looking to see if the kitten would come back, and sure enough, it crawled back to the bench trying to find a spot. I petted it and tried to fix the cushion, but then Mom saw me down there and started screaming at the cat again. It felt so cruel. Then Mom starts ranting about how much crap the animal has on it, how dirty it is, and how animals don't belong in our yard. I just snapped and told her, "We don't leave enough room for animals as it is, and we just keep making their lives harder. Physical filth doesn't matter nearly as much as being a shitty person deep down." Maybe I went a bit overboard, but... My mom is pretty religious and prays three times a day, and I looked it up online and found that Jesus said, "Whoever persecutes an animal will themselves be persecuted."

So, yeah. I don't even know what I'm asking here. I guess I just wanted to hear what you guys think.

Thanks.

You didn't go too far.
I’ve actually moved apartments several times just to hide cats I found (mostly kittens, and once a puppy) from my landlords until they could find better homes. The last time, a stray cat that finally trusted me ended up having kittens right on my bed. I spent two months hiding her and four kittens—first in a small room, then on the balcony. It was exhausting to look after them since I work twelve-hour shifts and travel constantly, the pay is low, and getting help from local shelters is a nightmare. Keeping the place clean was a struggle, and sleeping near them was tough. Eventually, fleas showed up. In the end, my landlord caught on, and we were all given notice to move out. I managed to find homes for them at the very last second. Still, I saved four tiny lives, regardless of the judgment from people around me or the cost to myself.
I don't regret it, and I'd do it all over again.

You’re a good person—principled, capable of empathy, and able to see things from someone else's perspective. You aren't a hypocrite like those people who talk about lofty ideals while only caring about their own tiny interests and ignoring the lives of others.
There are other layers to it, obviously, but that’s the gist. I’d say more, but my brain is just fried today.

Where is the kitten now?
The Zero Theorem in Movies ·
Jamie Turner80 said:...But let's be real, it's an absolute fact that Terry Gilliam has his own signature style—screaming, frantic, fantastical, with an epic flair...

:ehm: lyrical—maybe it's more accurate to say...
Need to talk/chat in Psychology ·
The urge to read is just as primal as the urge to troll.
System notifications in English in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I’d probably go with French. There’s just something about it that feels a bit more sophisticated, isn't there?
Superman [2015] in Movies ·
Fortunately, no.

Peel the Power!
Superman [2015] in Movies ·
Tyler Clark86 said:Yeah, maybe he's older, but that doesn't mean he can't entertain people—have you even seen My Name is Bruce? Sure, it came out in 2007, but I don't think Campbell's gonna lose his touch in just a few years... talent is talent. Hail to the king, baby.

(Haven't seen it yet, I'll add it to my list)

Hmm, true, but Stan Lee/Superman should probably be some kind of kid (living with his grandma, if I recall correctly)... maybe they could use some CGI to make him look younger, or just stray from the source material—but that would pretty much kill the magic, wouldn't it? 🤷
Superman [2015] in Movies ·
Frank Moore4 Asks:
Anyway, here are a few thoughts on who could actually pull off playing Superman.

In my opinion, Bruce Campbell Back in the day, he would have been absolutely perfect. Now? It feels like he’s just overstaying his welcome. A bit too much, honestly. Such a shame...

Can anyone actually picture a blockbuster Superman adaptation based on Mataković's Protman, or maybe Inspector Danet, coming out of Hollywood? Prot Pictures Studio? 😍
Classic: I don't get the rules on this Reddit thread in Feedback & Suggestions ·
So;

John Doe, in the general rules titled "What isn't allowed on Reddit?" states:

1. breaking US laws
2. violating generally accepted standards of civilization
3. harassment based on any grounds (race, nationality, religion, age, gender...)
...
5. profanity
...
7. posting pornographic or erotic content, including suggestive nudity or linking to such material (Google policy)
...
15. acting stupid


You can read all of that within this thread (do I really need to quote the whole thing?).
Why has this thread been sitting here for so long?
Nathan Moore6 said:Let's see what the mods have to say about this spam without using the edit button. 😳

I know you’re just sitting there, waiting for the perfect moment to trip me up... 😍
If you're not feeling the aesthetic of these posts, I can go back in and edit them. The content itself isn't going anywhere, though.
Nathan Moore6 said:You really seem obsessed with stuffing every single post with URL tags, don't you? ☕

In a courtroom, we'd actually call that an evidentiary procedure.

I think I finally get why you're struggling here: there's just too much data for you to process in a single post.
Jose Murphy65 said:If those are the best arguments we can muster, we're in trouble...

The core issue was laid out a long time ago.

Besides, there is a massive difference between quoting certain "scientists" (populists, perhaps?) and actually looking at the reality on the ground...

And where are you, Bolko? Have you offered a single reasoned comment or provided an actual, factual breakdown of how things really stand...?

Michio Kaka—a "scientist" (or just a populist?) 🤣
slycrane94 said:I think you've got the wrong forum. You can find Alternative over there. Science isn't some contest to see who can spam the most links. (I know, I know)

- And that’s why you explain everything so eloquently, just as befits a true man of science.

My apologies for the links; purely unscientific of me, I suppose.
Nathan Moore6 said:those links have nothing to do with Natural science as someone else already pointed out. I'll keep this brief and clear: I am writing about what I actually know and have read. I’m no expert, but I’ve read enough that radiation doesn't scare me the way it seems to terrify some people in this thread.

- Oh, really? You’ve certainly demonstrated a profound grasp of what you’ve read here.

I think casualharbor9 is acting like they're in some religious cult fighting against nuclear power and everything related to it. It just won't fly.

- It is truly pathetic how much space is given to someone's endless labeling, spamming, and lying.

Nathan Moore6 said:that's why neither I nor many others feel like wasting our breath or energy. This whole thread has been flooded with those links. As far as I can tell, the people who actually know what they're talking about have already abandoned the discussion. No one has the patience to sit here and explain things.


You're right, don't waste any more of your words or energy...
northerncyclist2 said:I’m generally against locking threads unless it’s absolutely unavoidable. Ideally, moderators should just step in and steer the conversation back on track instead.

Exactly.
brightpuma said:I mean, what do I know? You say you wouldn't agree with that, yet you also wouldn't agree with the official measurements (link). According to them, the radiation levels there are X, while the threshold for human harm is Y. Take a standard benchmark—whether it's the potassium in bananas, annual solar radiation exposure, or just general background radiation from the environment—and
compare it against the actual situation. Provide some context for the layman so when they read it, they aren't just staring at a raw link (which most people won't bother opening or reading, especially if they're browsing on a phone), but instead see your analysis, a comparison, and some actual perspective..

I think, at least, that’s how I would have handled it.. 🤷

- Yeah, it's a shame I didn't write it that way...
or maybe I actually did?

- So, the "debate" continued roughly like this:

... along with the inevitable side-track spamming (to put it mildly) which I won't even bother quoting here...

Sometimes it isn't about proving others wrong in an argument, but rather ensuring that when a neutral observer looks at the discourse, they gravitate toward the logic of the entire argument through sheer clarity... and those neutral observers are laypeople for whom a value like 1 Bq is pretty abstract without a comparison... ... 🤷

- Agreed; that should be the whole point of a forum discussion... but there's no use in presenting a solid argument when the other side responds with nothing but arrogance and condescension...

🙂

😛
brightpuma said:The issue isn't actually the content; it's how it's being pushed.

If I make a claim—let's call it X—and you respond by saying:

"That's not true:

link

link

link

link

link

link

"
And then occasionally throwing in a snippet from one of those links...

How am I supposed to give you a reasoned rebuttal? You haven't actually presented an argument supported by your sources; you've just dumped a pile of links and expected me to dig through them to find your counterpoints so I can address them. Honestly, I just don't have the energy for that... 🤷

So, what would you consider a better response? For instance, if someone claims radiation levels in the Fukushima region are negligible, and I respond with a link to a study or measurement that proves otherwise? We've already seen enough empty rhetoric on this topic.
I'm not interested in an endless "yes-it-is/no-it-isn't" debate either.

Plus, I don't think you actually answered my last point or the question I asked you on that thread... 🤷

If I missed something, just say so—I'll always provide a solid link.😬
Jose Murphy65 said:I couldn't agree more...

Rather than actually dismantling someone else's argument, they just twist the words around and tack on their own baseless claims—stuff that lacks any logical foundation or basis in natural science... not to mention the heavy dose of confirmation bias...
and let's not even get started on the constant ad hominem attacks...

Really, Bolka? That's your move?
brightpuma said:Sure.. ☕
I assume we're talking about those "experts" who probably blamed every single miscarriage during the year of the Chernobyl disaster and the year following it on radiation...☕

Statistics are the perfect tool for manipulation in these kinds of debates, mainly because no tumor carries an ID card. There are other studies out there, but let's not get bogged down in that right now...

Haramov's whole performance was just spamming a mountain of links, half of which have nothing to do with actual natural science and aren't far off from what you call unfounded platitudes...

Funny enough, when I actually asked on the thread what specifically was wrong with the content of all those heavy-hitting links, nobody really stepped up—except for a few people admitting they weren't experts or hadn't even read them.
Has anyone else noticed how little connection some people on this thread have to actual natural science?


Plus, radiation is basically a boogeyman for most people today, making it incredibly easy to trigger mass hysteria with it...

Some people find it much easier to slap on various labels than to actually provide a reasoned response.